Supreme Court Ponders Influence Of Spectators

October 12, 2006|By David G. Savage Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time took up the question of whether the conduct of spectators may deprive a defendant of a fair trial and require that the criminal conviction be overturned.

The justices heard arguments in a San Jose, Calif., murder case where three members of the victim's family had worn buttons with small photos of him during part of the trial.

In 1995, a jury convicted Mathew Musladin of shooting and killing Tom Studer, the fiance of his estranged wife Pamela, in the driveway of her home. Last year, however, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his conviction in a 2-1 decision on the grounds that the small photos of the victim may have unfairly influenced the jurors.

During the Supreme Court's argument Wednesday, several justices said they thought trial judges should ban spectators from displaying photos, badges and messages in the courtroom. However, most of them also said they were reluctant to reverse a murder conviction for that reason alone.

At one level, the San Jose case poses a clash between the victim's rights and the rights of a criminal defendant. On another level, however, it tests the power of federal judges to reverse convictions from state courts.

Ten years ago, Congress amended the law to say federal judges should not second-guess the decisions of state judges in criminal cases. Federal judges are empowered to reverse state convictions only for violations of "clearly established law" as set by the Supreme Court, the law said.

California state lawyers said the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit ignored that rule in this case, and they got some unexpected help from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"We haven't had a case, have we, where it is spectator conduct as opposed to government conduct that's being attacked?" she asked the lawyer who represented Musladin.

Her point was clear: How could the 9th Circuit conclude that the California court's handling of the case violated "clearly established law," as set by the Supreme Court, when the high court had yet to decide such a case?

Gregory A. Ott, a deputy attorney general from San Francisco, urged the court to reverse the decision and to rule that the photos in this case did not prejudice the jury.

"The three simple buttons bearing only a photo did not convey any message of blame [or] guilt, anything other than grief of this family," Ott said.

Also Wednesday, the court wrestled with its own conflicting rulings on whether judges or juries should decide criminal punishments, with the fate of California's nearly 30-year-old sentencing law hanging on the outcome.

After the hourlong argument, it was unclear whether the justices would uphold the state's system, or give thousands of prison inmates a chance for a new and shorter prison term.